That is entirely relevant to a German,more generally to an European,or to a Canadian.But it is not to an American.Americans regard history as irrelevant.They know besides little about it,much the same way they are not well informed about foreign countries or cultures.They live in thepresent and in America,and ignore the rest.They never knew as a nation what is adversity,and therefore cannot understand the skepticism ofan European about human progress.Whereas such a skepticism is not only understood at once but shared as wel by a Canadian like my humbleself.

While I would never claim that the stereotypes about American attitudes have not been earned, to take those sweeping generalizations and apply them yet more broadly to the gay populace that resides in the US is true folly. The gay people here know what adversity is; they have a healthy skepticism about human progress, and; that skepticism comes from a grasp of Gay history.

A Gay nationality is what you folks are trying to achieve, is it not? Knee-jerk prejudices based on national origin won't help in that. Puffery won't either... humble, or not.

And the Canadian Conservative Party won the federal election of yesterday january 23,and shall form a minority government.It is more or less similar to the US Republican Party.

Elsewhere you have commented on the ignorance of Americans as regards other countries' history and political situations. It is, therefore, my sad duty to inform you that the CPC is nothing at all like the US Republican Party. Just for the record, the CPC is roughly similar to the center of the US Democrat Party. In Canada, people who openly espouse the current views of the Republican Party are prosecuted for hate crimes -- and rightly so.

If we shall constitutionally prescribe that citizenship can be only granted to homosexuals above certain age (let's say 16), we will simply do what other countries do as well: we define criteria for gaining the citizenship, not less and not more.

I`d suggess the following:

1) All human beings to be regarded as without any sexual orientation at birth.2) All individuals before the onset of puberty to be regarded as minors and as without effective or established sexual orientation.3) All individuals from the onset of puberty and capacity for participation in reproduction and rearing of other human beings to be regarded as adults,and sorted into heterosexuals and gays.In case of doubt,the individual to be regarded as heterosexual.The age of majority could be setat 15 or 16 at the lowest,or at 18 at the latest.4) A general obligation,as a sort of gay international and unilateral duty towards mankind,to protect the interests of minors,not extending though to the obligation of greeting or receiving them on gay sovereign soil.

Well, at this point we shall make clear that "inhabitants" not necessarily means "citizens". It is a common use in any modern state to make a difference between its national subjects and national subjects of other nations who happen to live temporarily or permanently on the territory of the state. Every sovereign nation can establish rules for foreigners, inclusive permissions or restrictions on taking residency on the state's territory. We can do alike - we can allow foreigners to live among us, or deny them this right.

The only non-gays I`d see present on the territory of a gay State would be tourists,cooperants or diplomats.The same way I was sometimesasked to fill a form an hour or so before the landing of my flight in a foreign country,in which I undertook not to work while present there,non-gay visitors would sign an immigration form in which they would undertake to have no reproductive activity while in a gay Republic.We could waive the visa requirement for close relatives or persons with an invitation from a gay resident and citizen.The basic characteristic of independence is that we would choose the non-gays we are interested in dealing with,and exclude the problematic elements of the heterosexual societies without any possibility of appeal.Older non-gays beyond the age of reproduction,and with gay descendants already citizens and residents of the gay State,could be made permanent foreign residents.We have to take in consideration here those heterosexual parents who protected their gay kids,who have thus rendered a service to the gay nation,and who deserve a reward for their contribution.

Therefore it is futile, in my opinion, to even consider anything less than full equality for all inhabitants of any nation. If, under these non-discriminatory conditions, gay people remain the majority in a nation than that would be fine.

Well, at this point we shall make clear that "inhabitants" not necessarily means "citizens". It is a common use in any modern state to make a difference between its national subjects and national subjects of other nations who happen to live temporarily or permanently on the territory of the state. Every sovereign nation can establish rules for foreigners, inclusive permissions or restrictions on taking residency on the state's territory. We can do alike - we can allow foreigners to live among us, or deny them this right.

If we shall constitutionally prescribe that citizenship can be only granted to homosexuals above certain age (let's say 16), we will simply do what other countries do as well: we define criteria for gaining the citizenship, not less and not more.

If citizens desire to have children, they must be aware that these children do not automatically become citizens. This is also not unusual in other countries, when children are e.g. born in a bi-national relationship. Some countries automatically grant citizenship to all children born on their territory, some countries automatically grant citizenship to all descendants of their national subjects, and very often these legislations collide. It might be a hardship by times for such couples, but parents are generally themself responsible for the correct status of their children. In practice, if we shall agree upon dual citizenship as a general rule, then parents with dual citizenship are best advised to apply for the other citizenship for their children.

The above regulations seem to me necessary for preserving the gay nature of the state. They will certainly cause some discomfort for citizens with procreative wishes - but you must agree that in any society members are generally obliged to be considerate of others as well. Every society has a set of regulations pursuing a sustainable development of this particular society - e.g. to be economical with water or use public transportation instead of an own car. The limitation of the gay state will be - by its very nature - the circumstance that it can't sustain with growing heterosexual population. I can't tell you the critical percentage of procreation vs immigration, but above some critical procreative rate the society would be thrown off balance. Not our heterophobia, but bitter necessity will force us to deny automatically citizenship to the descendants of our citizens. Individual rights are a very precious good, but collective rights and interests must not be neglected completely as well. It will be a challenge for the politics to find a sustainable compromise between those interests, and I think my suggestions on this issue are moderate and convenient.

As for the procreation in general - of course everyone is free to get so many children as he/she wishes - and each of these children shall be welcome. I only appeal to your sense of reality - even prevalently heterosexual societies in developed countries regard it as absolutely sensible to limit the amount of children to 2 per woman - not by any legal restrictions or sanctions, but by the power of insight and responsibility of its citizens. Gays and lesbians living in the Diaspora shall feel free to get as many children as they want, but inside of the gay state they shall consider the entailing problems for the state and these children - and I think they will act wise. As the citizenship of the gay state will be acquired by adult homosexuals by choice, they will willingly recognize these few rules as necessary for the preservation of the state.

Wonderful, K6, not only would we then have to endure charges that this proposed gay nation is heterophobic, but sexist as well. Who's the next undesirables to be excluded from this marvelous nation you're contemplating? Gay males who have or want children? Those who don't sufficiently fall in line with what your particular definition of gay is?

My political business is gay separatism.The definition of a gay I use is consequent to that aim.Individuals who have descendants or heterosexualinterests aren`t gays as far as I am concerned.The issue of their eventual expulsion from a gay independent and sovereign Republic does not arisesinsofar as I a involved.For they will have been locked out of the gay national community long before the process of secession is completed or even undertaken.

This will not happen if gay political independence also coincides with the secession of one sex from the other. Not that I advocate such a radical course of action. But I will advocate it if necessary, when necessary.

Wonderful, K6, not only would we then have to endure charges that this proposed gay nation is heterophobic, but sexist as well. Who's the next undesirables to be excluded from this marvelous nation you're contemplating? Gay males who have or want children? Those who don't sufficiently fall in line with what your particular definition of gay is?

You can't enforce a uniform ideology on people any more than you can enforce sterility upon them.

I guess our primary disagreement continues to be over the power and potential of gay parenting and procreation. My belief is that even a state which starts off with 100% homosexual adults is going to fairly quickly start producing children. The gay-friendly environment will only encourage such family life. Lesbians in particular will likely start this occurrence, and once it starts other individuals and couples (of either gender) will observe this and start desiring children and families of their own.

This will not happen if gay political independence also coincides with the secession of one sex from the other.Not that I advocate such a radicalcourse of action.But I will advocate it if necessary,when necessary.Certain factors might besides not depend upon us,like current gay migrating trends from intolerant countries to tolerant ones.There is almost no lesbian migration in that respect,while their exists a gay male one.A gay State founded upon immigration will either be exclusively or overwhelmingly male.Thus with no sex ratio - and likely also no attitude of compromise with the hethro lifestyle - allowing for the re-establishing of reproduction as we know it in heterosexual societies.

Thank you for your fuller explanation. I appreciate it. In response, let me begin by repeating that I have no objection to any gay-majority nation as long as it allows for the full spectrum of gay development, and doesn't discriminate against any of its people.

I guess our primary disagreement continues to be over the power and potential of gay parenting and procreation. My belief is that even a state which starts off with 100% homosexual adults is going to fairly quickly start producing children. The gay-friendly environment will only encourage such family life. Lesbians in particular will likely start this occurrence, and once it starts other individuals and couples (of either gender) will observe this and start desiring children and families of their own. My evidence for this is what is already occurring. It's undeniable that gay people are having children, what is debatable is how many will ultimately do so. In other words, where will it cap off?

This phenomenon is clearly the Achilles's Heel of any gay-nation project. But it need not be viewed as a negative development. A group's ability (or desire) to create life is a social advancement over a group's inability (or lack of desire) to create life. Reason: because it strengthens that group's ability to survive into the future by 1) biologically reproducing itself, thereby removing its dependency on others for its very existence, and by 2) helping to intimately shape the next generation's sense of ethics and morality through the parent-child bond, thereby helping to prevent attititudes threatening to that group. Procreation is a uniformly human possibility. It is no more the private domain of heterosexuals than love is, or the forming of relationships. Therefore, instead of viewing it as a potential negative, and fretting over it as a threat to gay majority, it can be viewed positively, and welcomed as an advance in gay development. As in most things, it all depends on one's attitude. And the wonderful thing about attitudes is that they can sometimes be changed.

If the negative avenue is taken; that is, if gay procreation is viewed by the state as a potential threat and measures are put into place to either discourage it, or to discriminate against the resultant children who might happen to be heterosexual, this will result in much social unrest. Heterosexuals are not the brow-beaten, disorganized folks that gay people have largely been through history. They constitute the majority in every current nation on the planet. Heterosexuals in any gay-majority nation will be well aware of that. It would not take them long to organize the world's first 'Straight Rights Movement.' Such a movement would attract many gay allies as well, both from within and without the gay-majority nation. From within, the core of gay allies would likely be their own families and friends. From without, the potential would be far greater. Gays in other nations, well aware - through their own experiences - of the rights of minorities to fair treatment, would largely support the heterosexual rights movement. Under such relentless pressure, sooner or later, all forms of state discrimination against non-gays would fall.

Therefore it is futile, in my opinion, to even consider anything less than full equality for all inhabitants of any nation. If, under these non-discriminatory conditions, gay people remain the majority in a nation than that would be fine.

Where shall I begin? For the first, let me assure that I am neither an optimist, nor a pessimist. My world view is largely determined by the sense for human history and the developements it is going through the millenia – with rise and fall of states, cultures and entire civilizations.

That is entirely relevant to a German,more generally to an European,or to a Canadian.But it is not to an American.Americans regard history as irrelevant.They know besides little about it,much the same way they are not well informed about foreign countries or cultures.They live in thepresent and in America,and ignore the rest.They never knew as a nation what is adversity,and therefore cannot understand the skepticism ofan European about human progress.Whereas such a skepticism is not only understood at once but shared as wel by a Canadian like my humbleself.

Besides, yesterday ILGA's application for joining the UN's Economic and Social Council was refused with voices of e.g. USA, Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon. 2700 NGO's are reported to be officially accredited at the UN, not a single one of them representing the interests of homosexuals.

And the Canadian Conservative Party won the federal election of yesterday january 23,and shall form a minority government.It is more or less similarto the US Republican Party.The group I represent in alt.politics.micronations has already commented there and on the subject by way of its Frenchlanguage sector of activity.Upon request by the GLR,a translation shall be provided.

as you wish me to explain my views more detailed, I will try to respond to your question in the best way I can. Though basically posted in this forum, my suggestions are not sufficiently deliberated yet as to be presented in a capacious book; this dereliction of duty I will try to adjust later. For the first, I shall make some things clear and then address some of the controversal topics.

In the preface I wish to ask you, if I may, to lay down the prejudices agains the project I am pleadging for, as these prejudices cause you to overlook the fine details of my statements, details which are essential for correct understanding of the idea. Much of your criticism comes from unjustifiably generalization of my suggestions concerning the gay state, a project which is a partial solution addressing certain problems which can not be solved by convential gay rights activism. This is not a general solution, suitable to solve each and every problem of the gay people. No need to mention that the deliberations concerning these two very different cases might lead to significantly different conclusions, therefore we are very often talking at cross purposes.

Where shall I begin? For the first, let me assure that I am neither an optimist, nor a pessimist. My world view is largely determined by the sense for human history and the developements it is going through the millenia – with rise and fall of states, cultures and entire civilizations. Where once a high culture existed, we face barbary now; were once a barbary was, is the cultural center of the modern civilisation. Nothing is of eternal duration, neither periods of decay, nor the golden ages. Correct analysis of current situation should not cloud our vision in the long term and be aware of possible future developements. You, as a declared optimist seem to trust into the linear progress of the humankind, whereas I think of the progress in form of a helix. As this is a matter of beliefs, we must agree to disagree at this place.

The second thing which I wish to make clear is my views on nationalism. The modern scholars of nationalism generally agree, that the conception of nationalism has changed since the end of the WWII. It is not anymore a matter of superiority of one nation in comparison to others, but rather a consensus that every nation (or a people) has a right for self-determination. Therefore most nationalists of our days do not scamper against other peoples or nations, they instead emphasise the cultural uniqueness of the concerned people and argue that without a certain level of souvereignity this cultural uniqueness invariably will be lost. Whereas one can certainly discuss about the supposed urgent need to rescue any particular culture, one can't deny that at least for the nationalists these particular cultures are very precious. Therefore, in the nationalists world view, every nation should have it's own territorial state; and when this is not possible (in case of multinational / multiethnic states), at least a certain degree of self-determination must be guaranteed, e.g. through partially divergent jurisdiction or special system of representation.

I frankly admit that I am a gay nationalist – therefore my world view is different from you. Whereas an integrationalist by nature is rather intended to downplay the differences between two peoples and instead stresses the similarities, the nationalist by nature performs exactly the opposit way. It is in vain to complain about the habits of the opponents: both are blind on one eye and it would be intellectually oblique to pretend that it wasn's like this. Nevertheless, a thoughtful representative of both parties is able to a certain degree to understand the positions and concerns of his contrahents, if practical questions are discussed. One thing which must be clear is that I of course do not generally condemn straight people, nor do I believe that they are hostile agains us by nature. I simply came to the conclusion that our differences are that much striking, that we can rightfully conceive us as a people ("Volk") and that this Volk is worth of being preserved in ist uniquiness. I do not impose this opinion upon anybody against his/her will, but I was glad to discover that many people feel similar. I feel no urge to persuade every and each gay and lesbian to adopt my views, as this is an impossible task anyways. I simply appellate to those who share same feelings to "gather under my flag" (T. Herzl). You must admit that if a people desires to build up an identity as a Volk, one should let it proceed. Most national movement began this way.

I am well aware that many, at first probably even most homosexual people would refuse the very idea of being a Volk on ist own. Therefore I wish to make the conception of a gay nation clear through the succession of hierarchical sets of individuals, where the next one is a partial sub-set of the previous:

queer nation (syn: Schwulenvolk, gay tribe etc.) – those who feel being a people (a "Volk"),

national subjects of the gay State.

It is a matter of fact, that the self-estimation of queerness is differing much among the gay people in general: what is a minor difference for one, is a centerpiece of identity to the other. It would be foolish to assume that affiliation to a queer nation and the gay state would suit everybody, we can however discuss about the effects induced by this nation and the gay state. I believe that such a gay state could become not only place of refuge, but also an important part of gay culture in general, catalizing the interlingual and interstatal cooperation of gay people. You suggested that an increase of homophobia could be caused by such a state – why? If the heterosexuals are that much sagacious as you believe they are, there should be no problem at all. We in no way would discriminate more against straights than, let's say Vatican discriminates against US-citizens. They can visit us as much they want, and we would be glad to make business with the rest of the world and cooperate with them where it appears necessary and of good purpose. We simply would make clear that our little territorial ressources and the peculiar state idea do not allow us to naturalize larger numbers of straight people. Not the existence of a gay homeland would stir up homophobia, but on contrary homophobia makes gay state first required.

The national subjects of the gay state will consist of naturalized affiliates of queer nation (see the definition above), independently from any actual residency on the territory of the gay state. The citizens should be free to decide whether they surrender their prior nationality or keep dual citizenship (usefull for those in diaspora). The activities of the government of a gay stay would probably include, but not restrict oneself to:

domestic administration of the territory and defense,

funding of gay-related cultural projects in the homeland and in diaspora,

identity formation policy measures, especially for youngsters among the queer/gay people in the broader sense,

protection of citizens and affiliates abroad,

home-taking of persecuted affiliates,

coordination of activities to strengthen the bonds between the State and Diaspora,

diplomatic activities on behalf of the queer/gay people in the broader sense.

Straight and bisexual immigrants can be allowed as residents in a limited degree (but regularly not as citizens). The question of nationality of inborn straight children is not satisfactory solved yet, thought there is a variety of practical and human solutions in discussion (here and here).

As you can see, the gay state would, as proposed, in no way directly interfere with the interests of integrationalists amongst the queer/gay people in the broader sense. Any legislation or immediate governmental activity of the gay state would affect solely its citizens and affiliates of this entity. However, the gay state would probably try to influence the local and world politics in a way, promising benefits to the entire LGBT community.

If you have some questions, critic or suggestions to the above formulated principles, I will be glad to read and answer them.

Now I would like to take position to some of your previously formulated points. It might appear that I do not give them sufficient attention, but most of them actually are based on the above mentioned philosophical differences and the naturally differing emphasis on positive vs. negative developements. Apparently we know the same facts but value them differently: where you see generall world-wide progresses with minor imperfections, I see a world-wide prevalency of homophobia with temporary and locally limited positive developements. Well, who of us is right? I would say there is more than one reality, depending on the rank of values one has incorporated in the course of one's life. Asked about our likeness to the virtued middle-class married and decent heterosexuals, or to a prostitute swish with all his insufficiencies and infertility, we probably would position us in a different way.

And now some even vaguer assertion that you don't view it as threat because its occurrence, in your eyes, would be below a significant percentile. But what does this mean? If it proved to grow above a certain percentile you WOULD view it as a threat? Would you then oppose it? Allow it? What?

Here the misunderstanding origines from unjustifiably generalization of what I have actually said. Whilst I was clearly talking about the gay state, you are assuming that I am talking about the entire gay world. No need to mention that the deliberations in this two very different cases must lead to significantly different conclusions. The accurate quotation of my position were:

Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes.

Indeed, if many citizens of a territorial gay state would start bearing a significant amount of children, this state would be in danger to loose its nature as a gay state. No doubt, there would severe controversies arise among citizens about how to deal with such a situation – either to expel the straight children or surrender the idea of the gay state at all and become one state like any other. The first solution would be cruel, the second would be the end of the very idea of a gay state and I were a fool to accept it as satisfying. Therefore I have expressed various ideas in other posts how the situation can be managed in a half-way civilized way:

The problem which I see, is rather of a different nature: what these poor heterosexual kids will do when they discover their own sexuality and will find no adequate partners? This is something which would be a source of discomfort for them and probably drive them to look for a better place in the world, without any pressure or harassment. This would cause their parents and friends certain pain and grief, but this is something what all parents go through, as the kids are generally looking for fortune far away from mama's home. We should keep in mind, that the democratic wealthy world is growing together economically and socially, and the chances for a straight kid to study and work abroad are pretty good. Those who will stay, will be treated heartily and hopefully become "usefull members of society", as all adults expect kids to be.

The fact that the social climate has improved for homosexuals over the past 50 years is no accident. It coincides with the formation and growth of an organized and active gay rights movement. While homosexuals have certainly existed all through history, and same-sex relations have been tolerated at certain times and in certain areas, to my knowledge there has never been anything remotely close to the gay rights movement we have today. So yes, I do use the past half century or so as the basis of my argument. What do you prefer to use, the preceding millennia when there was no such gay rights movement?

I prefer to use the experiences gathered over millenia. There might have been no gay rights movement before, but there were gay rights, as well as same-sex marriage. Yes, there are progresses in some western countries (who has ever denied that fact?), but in the rest of the world (especially in Africa and the Middle East) the governments have in the same 50 years increased the punishments for homosexuality – including death penalty. And this is a trend which is as well continuing, especially in the last 5 years.

The past couple years have seen legalized gay marriage in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts (a hugely important foothold in the USA). It has simultaneously seen civil unions legalized in England and Connecticut - an institution many people regard as either marriage under another name, or as a stepping stone towards marriage. The state of California nearly passed gay marriage as well - with only the governor's veto preventing it. This is remarkable progress in a relatively short time. Some people choose to downplay this and instead focus on the comparatively insignificant negative developments. The constitutional bans on gay marriage, for instance - which though unfortunate, I agree, took nothing away from gays that they previously weren't already deprived of. They simply added another impediment, which itself can be - and will be - overturned in the future. So in balance, there's been a significant net gain for gay rights globally.

Certainly it is a very good success if gay people can marry. Who ever denied that? Yes, in Massachussets it's possible to marry, but these marriages are not recognezed in the rest of the country, isn't this true? In Spain it is possible to marry as well - but try to walk through Madrid in a late evening, keeping hands with your boyfriend. No doubt it will be an experience you will never forget.

The developement in the US, as far as I can jugge it, does not justify your thesis of quick preogress with "insignificant negative developments". It is to wish for the Americans that they re-gain their democracy back, but what is happening now is an obvious conservative counter-revolution. In a country where millions of people devote significant amount of their time and money in order to "fight homosexual agenda" it is very doubtfull, if the achieved successes could be sustained. I remember you on the fate of the ban of death penalty. Any explicit constitutional ban on same-sex marriage is not solely a minor nuisance, but instead homophobia put to the level of a state goal. The practical effects will be an increasing numbers of fag bashings, as all the bullies will feel encouraged through the state.

Is it enough? No, of course not. There are still people being murdered and executed for being gay. But it is an overall improvement, not an overall deterioration. And there is no valid reason (certainly no reason I've read in this forum) to believe this overall improvement will not continue. And, in time, this improvement will inevitably reach the more oppressive societies as their own gay rights movements take root and grow - hopefully aided by the more advantaged homosexuals elsewhere. Global economic, cultural, and technological forces will continue to penetrate national borders, making this improvement a near certainty. You cannot accurately gauge the future of gay people by overly dwelling on how they were treated in past epochs. The limited, confined social and political order of those past periods no longer exists in much of the modern world, and the pockets where it still does will eventually disappear. Here again, with all due respect, you seem to be out of step with the times.

Don't get me wrong – all the achieved progresses are wonderfull and a result of hard work by many gay rights activists. But these remarkable progresses do not represent any global developement like you are suggesting. They are what they are – partial liberalisation within the western civilization – not less and not more. What makes you so sure that especially our generation is living on the breach of times? Does anything in the world politics back your thesis about the golden age from now on and till the end of the time? More and more countries come into posession of nuclear weapons, militarization of space is just a question of time, AIDS is depopulating entire landscapes in Africa, the climatic change will pretty soon result in wars for water – and so on. The recent invasion of Iraque proves how little political insight the so-called "leaders of the free world" posess and suggest little good for the future in general. To prevent your objections: Yes, I am aware that life in North America and in Europe is very comfortable and fool of plesure, but does this change anything on the above facts? I wish I could share your optimism, but I cann't.

It is true that some theaters in Utah refused to show ‘Brokeback Mountain.' But it is also true that this decision (though heartily approved in some quarters) was received overall with ridicule and disapproval. That point, Vicky, you failed to mention as well. It's always critical to look at the overall picture in order to accurately gauge our situation. If one doesn't, than you are in constant danger of distorting reality; and in extreme cases of even falling into a form of paranoia.

Paranoia? May be. May be not – I could as well suggest you of being an ostrich, but you probably would not like the comparison. Do you seriously expect from a gay rights activist to explain on each and every step that "there are of course not only violations of our civil and human rights, but also remarkable progresses and actualy we get beaten up not that often like 20 years ago". Please forgive me the irony, but I find it grotesque to insist on talking about things which we finally were permitted to do or to posess, when at the same time there is so much to fight for. Beg you pardon, when some of the movies would refuse to show "Schindler's list" in similar manner, would you be the same way calm and considerate? So why not be the same way resolute when gays are the one oppressed? I truly do not understand this decency, Jeff – and I try hard.

Let me be clear. It's not so much that the concept of a gay nation is in and of itself bad, it's that it's impossible to achieve without discouraging gay parenting and procreation - which means, it must therefore discourage full gay development. This is what I object to. [..] This approach is not going to convince folks to change their minds. You are contemplating a major project. Your rational behind it has got to be rock solid. Currently, it is not. It is quite weak. And don't forget who's writing this. I'm someone who wrote a book advocating gay-majority communities. It should be quite telling that thus far you've been unable to convince even ME of the merits of a gay nation.

Jeff, in no way do I disregard your critics – insofar they meet the point. Of course it is difficult to critic a project accurately when there is no elaborately written and comprehensive treatise on the idea. But may be it is worth then to wait with generallized critics of assumed positions? Also it seems to me that especially authors of specific theories (like your pleadge for gay procreation) are by times somewhat reluctant to acknowledge other people's ideas, if they do not exactly match their own theories. In a generally loving society with sexual identity/orientation being no issue, cross-couple kids were certainly an enrichment for the parents, no matter gay or straight. In such society gay culture would have no reason to exist, either.

The idea of gay procreation does seem for some reason to have provoked you, particularly the view that gay procreation marks an advancement in gay development. I tried to clearly and briefly state my case supporting this.

The idea of gays reproducing themself is not especially provoking for me, but the notion that it should be a generall advancement of the gay people is not a favorit of mine. Those who wish it should do it, but claims on advanced developement are at least disputable. The realities of gay people are very different on this planet, and I am most sure that many of them would feel encouraged by your theses. But ones with differing realities, especially the less fortunate ones who must flee their countries, could be served the best with a prosperious gay homeland and a government willing and able to protect them. A cooperation with a vital and well-organized diaspora would additionally provide us stronger legitimacy on the international arena.

Besides, yesterday ILGA's application for joining the UN's Economic and Social Council was refused with voices of e.g. USA, Iran, Zimbabwe, China, Cameroon. 2700 NGO's are reported to be officially accredited at the UN, not a single one of them representing the interests of homosexuals.

Jeff, you underscore me both intellectually and morally. Whereas I can understand, that it is very convenient for you in a debate to attach me some additional extremist views and believe they were truly mine, you shouldn't give in to this temptation.

Through all our discussions in this forum I constantly propagated the idea that in any future gay state it should be a basic human right of citizens to have children, if they wish so. I also do not regard any gay parenting as a serious danger for such a state – simply because the effect would be below any percentile significance, in my eyes. Why do you make it that simple for you – either one is with or against you? I do not regard your "agenda" as threatening or harmful, no am I intended to impose my ideas upon someone. I simply don't share your views on the subject – you shouldn't be offended if I do not find your arguments convincing and clearly explain my reasons for not doing so.

Vicky, I apologize if I have insulted you. That was not my intent. Debates, particularly in a forum such as this, have a tendency to sound more heated than they are. The idea of gay procreation does seem for some reason to have provoked you, particularly the view that gay procreation marks an advancement in gay development. I tried to clearly and briefly state my case supporting this. If your reasons for rejecting this are different than the ones I suggested, I apologize, but you have given no clear, logical argument supporting your position - other than some vague, unsubstantiated claim that reproduction was somehow not for homosexuals. (A claim which reality refutes. Not just I.) And now some even vaguer assertion that you don't view it as threat because its occurrence, in your eyes, would be below a significant percentile. But what does this mean? If it proved to grow above a certain percentile you WOULD view it as a threat? Would you then oppose it? Allow it? What? You're not completing your thoughts, Vicky. With so little to go on, you often leave me no choice on these issues but to conjecture.

Jeff, do we live on the same planet? You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization. Whereas it is certainly true that in some countries and areas some progresses were made, it is also true that in some countries and areas the situation has gotten significantly worse.

The fact that the social climate has improved for homosexuals over the past 50 years is no accident. It coincides with the formation and growth of an organized and active gay rights movement. While homosexuals have certainly existed all through history, and same-sex relations have been tolerated at certain times and in certain areas, to my knowledge there has never been anything remotely close to the gay rights movement we have today. So yes, I do use the past half century or so as the basis of my argument. What do you prefer to use, the preceding millennia when there was no such gay rights movement?

Progress is not made uniformly. You shouldn't even expect that. Despite the setbacks, despite the opposition, despite the areas of intense oppression, the overall global situation has never been better for gay people. And this is a trend that is continuing. You seem to denigrate the fact that I'm an optimist (with your remark about my ‘private cosy experience' - even though you have no idea what my life has been like) but my optimism comes from an analysis of the facts. The past couple years have seen legalized gay marriage in Spain, Canada, and Massachusetts (a hugely important foothold in the USA). It has simultaneously seen civil unions legalized in England and Connecticut - an institution many people regard as either marriage under another name, or as a stepping stone towards marriage. The state of California nearly passed gay marriage as well - with only the governor's veto preventing it. This is remarkable progress in a relatively short time. Some people choose to downplay this and instead focus on the comparatively insignificant negative developments. The constitutional bans on gay marriage, for instance - which though unfortunate, I agree, took nothing away from gays that they previously weren't already deprived of. They simply added another impediment, which itself can be - and will be - overturned in the future. So in balance, there's been a significant net gain for gay rights globally.

Is it enough? No, of course not. There are still people being murdered and executed for being gay. But it is an overall improvement, not an overall deterioration. And there is no valid reason (certainly no reason I've read in this forum) to believe this overall improvement will not continue. And, in time, this improvement will inevitably reach the more oppressive societies as their own gay rights movements take root and grow - hopefully aided by the more advantaged homosexuals elsewhere. Global economic, cultural, and technological forces will continue to penetrate national borders, making this improvement a near certainty. You cannot accurately gauge the future of gay people by overly dwelling on how they were treated in past epochs. The limited, confined social and political order of those past periods no longer exists in much of the modern world, and the pockets where it still does will eventually disappear. Here again, with all due respect, you seem to be out of step with the times.

Everything on this topic I propose is meant to encourage and facilitate the rise of gay people. That's one of the points of my whole ‘gay development' spiel. I also believe (actually on this point my certainty is so solid I can say I know) that continued progress - particularly in the more oppressive states - can only occur through engagement (that is, integration.) Segregation might be an answer for you personally, and your own private life, but it is not the answer for gay people as a whole.

One of the recent examples of cultural oppression is the last-moment decisin not to show the film "Brokeback Mountain" in some film theaters in Utah.

This is a perfect example of the difference an attitude and outlook can make. ‘Brokeback Mountain' has been doing very well in theaters wherever it appears. It has achieved general critical acclaim and already has won numerous awards. It is believed to be headed for additional success at the Oscars. This, Vicky, you failed to mention. You, instead, chose to focus only on the negative - turning what is overall a cultural breakthrough into ‘cultural oppression.'

Now certainly one must acknowledge and face the negative, but there's a danger (by habitually ignoring or downplaying the positive) of elevating the negative to a level that simply doesn't exist.

It is true that some theaters in Utah refused to show ‘Brokeback Mountain.' But it is also true that this decision (though heartily approved in some quarters) was received overall with ridicule and disapproval. That point, Vicky, you failed to mention as well. It's always critical to look at the overall picture in order to accurately gauge our situation. If one doesn't, than you are in constant danger of distorting reality; and in extreme cases of even falling into a form of paranoia.

Your request upon K6 living in Tehran reveals that you are well aware of the situation of gays there, but dismiss this knowledge as irrelevant for the debate – why? Are those unhappy creatures not a part of the gay people? Or is the truth too much disturbing for your comfortable world view?

I refer you to Denneny's "Fourth Proposition: Internalized Homophobia." As next you will tell us that all those leather-men, queens and dykes are themeself provoking homophobia and bring us all in danger through their indecent behaviour. As well as those who are flaunting their homosexuality –"is all these kissing and hand-keeping in public really necessary?"

As far as casting aspersions, Vicky, the above examples reveal that you are certainly well-practiced in the technique yourself. Are you seriously attempting here to portray me as homophobic? It would be more productive if you instead addressed some of the points I've been trying to make. Otherwise, my posting these messages is even a bigger waste of time than I first supposed.

Let me be clear. It's not so much that the concept of a gay nation is in and of itself bad, it's that it's impossible to achieve without discouraging gay parenting and procreation - which means, it must therefore discourage full gay development. This is what I object to. (As well as, of course, any trace of state discrimination.) Nothing is more essential for homosexuals than gay development, not even a gay nation. If there is a way around this dilemma, I would be eager to hear it.

And it is not I who has to do any convincing here, Vicky. It is you and your associates. I believe in integration. That is the overwhelming position of the gay community. It is your position of segregation which needs to convince us to change our views. I've pointed out to you some problems with your position. You have not even come close to adequately addressing them. It's as if you prefer to pretend they aren't there, or that they're too minor to bother yourself with.

This approach is not going to convince folks to change their minds. You are contemplating a major project. Your rational behind it has got to be rock solid. Currently, it is not. It is quite weak. And don't forget who's writing this. I'm someone who wrote a book advocating gay-majority communities. It should be quite telling that thus far you've been unable to convince even ME of the merits of a gay nation.

You have a lot of work to do. If you're serious about your project, and serious about attracting supporters, you need to start addressing some of these issues, not just casting them aside as inconvenient annoyances.

You generalize your private cosy experiences (made in a very limited geographical and social space) upon the entire world, and additionally extrapolate them into the future, basing your entire argumentation upon the very narrow time slot - last 50 years in the western civilization.

We know for certain that occasionnally and in history,homosexuality was tolerated.But these times did not lasted,for the obvious simple reasonthat they were not guaranteed by anything which would have made it perilous to abolish our then relative situation of freedom.And a closerstudy of those eras or nowadays places of relative freedom would teach us that homosexuality was tolerated only insofar as it did not interferedwith family life,only insofar as it did not displayed political ambitions similar to the ones of the heterosexual part of human societies which wanted toretain the State organization as its monopoly.

As for the numbers of supporters and similar primitive or dishonest motivations – time alone will show whether the idea will prove to be of some use for our people or not. The idea of a gay state is not my personal invention, neither am I thinking of my humble self as being a kind of messias - I am simply trying to contribute my share.

The idea of political independence in a sovereign country of ours could have occured to any of us.There is no merit in that,since the idea of the modern nation-State has already been discovered and evolved by organized heterosexual societies over the three or four last centuries.Since welive in those societies and are influenced by them,the appearance of gay separatists on the scene would have occured sooner or later,and was unavoidable.If we had not appeared and acted,others would have done so in our place.We are only pupils in that process of learning and analysis of heterosexual societies,and of drawing consequences.Not much remains to be invented to adjust the mantle of the nation-State so that it will fit our interest.We are the gays whom heterosexual societies raised and deserved.We cannot give back to heterosexual societies what we did not learned or received from them.And we live on earth to pursue earthly desires,by the earthly ways we were handed down and taught byhistory.Many aspects of our own culture could be lost.But the idea of political independence,because of its general and human aspect,eithercannot be forgotten by us or its discovery and application to our situation cannot be avoided.